9 Comments so far

1. V5 on March 27, 2007 7:20

   I ain’t buyin’ the ticket unless you take me with you!! HEH!

   V5

2. Moderate Hick on March 27, 2007 7:35

   Join the service then — getting paid close to 200K a year as a contractor is not the same as doing this for your country. Great that you support the troops but going back to Iraq for you means lots of cash and opportunities to mix with military folks. For the uniformed guys and gals, just another tour with low pay and months away from their loved ones.

   [Sniper One: Oh so because I have a skill that I can get paid to use in support of the mission I'm not actually making a sacrifice by being there? The time away from family only counts when your a GI? Nice. The usual "chicken hawk" argument from the left.]

3. Moderate Hick on March 27, 2007 7:55

   Actually I probably spent more time in uniform than you have been alive. Like I said it is just not the same. Kudos for being supportive but that is all you get from me.
   And sacrifice? Please… you took a calculated risk to go for which you are compensated very handsomely — as much as 7 times what the junior enlisted receive. A choice - not the same as the troops at all. Most vets are careful not to overplay their “sacrifices” because there is always someone who gave a little more than they did. So no… not even close in that department.
   I won’t call you names as you do me - just drawing a clear distinction about service.

   [Sniper One: I will agree that it is not the same as being a GI. The amount of sacrifice is not the same. However, it is still a sacrifice.

   Thank you for your service.

   I spent 10 years in the private sector working on my skills so I could get a job supporting you guys in the field. I wasn't the one who decided to cut so many of the MOS down and use Civilians to do the job instead.]

4. Moderate Hick on March 27, 2007 8:14

   Fair enough. Thanks for being supportive of the troops.

5. ProphetJoe on March 27, 2007 8:27

   Does that $200K come with dragon skin and a kevlar pot, or do I have to buy my own?

6. ProphetJoe on March 27, 2007 8:50

   After a minute of more of reflection, I decided this post needed a serious reply:

   Moderate Hick, with all due respect to your point of view, I know one particular veteran from the 82nd Airborne who strongly opposed a proposed tribute to the fallen soldiers because my plan didn’t include contractors killed in the conflict. His point was that they made a greater sacrifice than he did because they died supporting the mission and he came home in one piece. For him anyway, the paycheck didn’t seem to matter when it came time for the funeral.

   That being said, I *do* understand the point you’re making — the sacrifice is diminished when one is paid well for their services as a contractor. In a perfect world, soldiers would be making NBA-sized salaries for their vital jobs and the professional athletes would be making an NCO’s pay for playing games and traveling the country.

   As a life-long civilian, I thank both of you for your sacrifices to the mission.

7. Moderate Hick on March 27, 2007 9:25

   Prophet Joe,

   Thoughtful comments. I don’t share quite the same view as the vet you mentioned. At my retirement I was careful to never mention the words my and sacrifice in the same sentence. I’ve known too many who gave much more than I and have a strong opinion about that.

   I respect anyone who serves the country regardless of the category of their employment. But those who have worn the uniform have entrusted their fate with the civilians we elect to represent us.

   Turning down a tasking is not an option. That is why many of us see it as a unique group with one simple criteria; either you served or you didn’t. This is not so much elitism at play as it is protecting the status of our brothers and sisters who gave their lives or health in the service. Talk to vets and I think you will find the large majority are very modest about what they did. On the other hand they may talk for hours about what others they knew did. I was at a Medal of Honor convention a few years back and one of the events was a POW luncheon. A brand new lieutenant and I were talking to a WW2 POW a little of his experiences for three years in the Pacific. I told him how much I admired and respected his service. He stopped and pointed into the ballroom where the 100+ MOH recipients were sitting and said “I’m no hero, now those guys in there… those guys are heroes”. I will remember that as long as I live.

   I do get concerned with the way that some people on both sides of the equation misrepresent the claims of support the troops to validate their particular political view. From the left you will hear “our boys and girls….” We are not boys and girls, we are adults that knew what we signed up for and many don’t appreciate this characterization of us as aimless children that need to be protected.

   From the right you sometimes hear suggestions on how to get the job done and the occasional bloodlust. We know what are we doing and do it very well. But killing people is a serious undertaking and armchair generals are at times resented. In short some vets get a little tired of being grouped as this massive, faceless block to support a person’s political opinion.

   I think that EL has his heart in the right place and am not denigrating his contributions. He has had some unique exposure to vets and active duty personnel. I hope that someday he takes the time to compile some of these experiences with all who have contributed or served, in some sort of book. It would be a fascinating read I am sure.

   Ernie Pyle was wildly popular because he was able to tell the stories of others rather than his personal sacrifices. He was a civilian and had the respect of millions for his bravery in capturing the stories of thousands of troops.

   [Sniper One: I do hope that I don't fall into this category:

   I do get concerned with the way that some people on both sides of the equation misrepresent the claims of support the troops to validate their particular political view.

   I support the mission, not because Bush Co. says so, not because I could make money off contracting, but because I have met some of the Iraqis and I believe in them. I believe that a (moderate) democratic Iraq would be in the best interest of the middle east. I believe in General Petraeus' leadership and ability to accomplish his mission.

   That said, the entire mission can still go to hell even if we do everything we can correctly; IF the Iraqis refuse to take control of their own destiny.]

8. Moderate Hick on March 27, 2007 11:47

   No - I don’t think you fall into “that” category.

   But I do think that it is important to recognize that this does happen too frequently on both sides of the political spectrum. It disappoints me that both sides don’t do a better job of policing the fringe elements and discouraging that type of behavior.

   I am a firm supporter of the need for the war in Iraq and its impact on the future of the mideast.
   In my opinion, Bush has done one of the lousiest jobs of any president in terms of public relations — his staff seems to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This has made it almost too easy for critics to successfully throw erroneous information at him in regards to the war.

   And yes - I agree about the Iraqis role in this. Like Viet Nam we are “winning” but the will is waning for a variety of reasons everyone should be concerned about.

   [Sniper One: As much as I would like to argue with you about Bush doing a lousy job of PR, I can't. Bush, as a communicator, has been a total failure.]

9. ProphetJoe on March 28, 2007 9:06

   Amen to the “lousy communicator” remarks!

   That’s one of the reasons I’d like to see Fred Thompson run for president. He can convey ideas in a clear, thoughtful manner which the average joe can relate to and understand.

   Btw, Sniper One — you’ve been given an award at: http://rodeoofthemind.com/2007/03/28/thinking-blogger-award/

   [Sniper One: Uh-oh Joe... now you're scaring me...]